What about food and housing and gas/electricity and going out to nice restaurants and whatnot?

People I know that have jobs they hate, have those jobs so that they can pay for lives they like outside of work. Lose that job, they can't pay for such a life.

What about a single mother? Can she quit a job she doesn't like? Or is this just the case for people who already own their homes and have extra incomes for other sources?

It's seemingly very myopic as if health care is all people need to pay for.

My dad got forced retired as a literacy teacher by the bankrupt San Bernardino County. He has health care as retired, but there's a lot of other expenses in life they are having to deal with because he was expecting to work on for a fair while (and loved teaching). What about the people who love their jobs, get fired because of the health care laws?

Lot of additional questions here.

Which makes this approach sound a lot like religious apologetics. The question and answer are framed as if they are self-evident and contained, but really don't actually address most people's relevant concerns. If you push back, however, you'll just get the scripted response, push back more and they'll say you're evil and damned to hell.

Dr. Caron:These are just a few of the images we've recorded. And you can see, it wasn't what we thought. There's been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 300 million people here, and they all just let themselves die.

This kind of statement from the Obama administration serves only to further divide the public, into those who will blindly and passionately support anything that they say, and those who find such assertions to be Orwellian, "Newspeak", incredible, and indefensible.

When one side is making assertions that are utterly devoid of common sense or any basis in fact, where is the opening for compromise?

Well, we also can't ignore the reality that a lot of older people are faced with sky-high ACA premiums, and they will be forced to cut their incomes to qualify for the government subsidy, or lose insurance entirely.

So they aren't CHOOSING to work less. The government has created a situation in which they MUST work less in order to be able to afford any health insurance.

As an example, in my home county in GA, a couple aged 60 and 59 with a 65K income would be forced to pay $1,834.37 for the second lowest "Silver" plan monthly. There is a $5,000 deductible, so the total cost before any health bills were paid to them would be over $23,000 a year, well more than 30% of income (without accounting for taxes). Additionally, the out of pocket maximum is $12,700, so with any significant medical bills (such as often occur for older persons), their total medical costs for the year would reach more than 50% of PRE-TAX income.

This is not affordable by any standard. Now, if they reduce their income to 62K a year the government subsidy will kick in and the insurance will only cost them $490 a month.

It is obvious that such a couple HAS to cut their incomes. It is not a choice. They are paying for all sorts of insurance they don't need, such as maternity, but they do have to have insurance.

This, however, leaves the luckless federal taxpayer not only losing the income tax from their downshifted income but subsidizing a couple with an income above the national median by over 16K a year.

I will leave it to the brilliant minds at the Althouse-Meade Intellectual Café to figure out just how sustainable that is.

May I point out that with the aging baby boomers, there are a LOT of couples in the same age bracket facing such a choice? There's no mystery as to why the unemployment rate suddenly dropped over the last few months - people are being forced to exit the work force.

Their other option is to get divorced. ACA might as well have been named the 55-and-divorced medical insurance Act.

The sharp subsidize cutoff means that people near the threshold have an economic incentive to keep their income below the limit. In some cases, making as little as a single dollar over the limit can cost them thousands more for health insurance. In those cases, it's completely rational for people to keep their income below the limit. So, at the same time people are costing the government (really, the rest of us taxpayers) more money, they'll also be paying less in taxes. A program that encourages greater expenditure and lower revenues - what could possibly go wrong?

The same kinds of perverse incentives exist in many means tested welfare programs such as food stamps. A better approach would be a tapered reduction of benefits with increased income but that isn't the government way. Beggars are easier to please.

When fewer people get work under Democrats, its wonderful and liberating.

Not least for the women who were liberated before when they got out of the kitchen and got jobs, and now get to be liberated all over again going the other way. If they could just keep repeating the cycle there's no telling how liberated they'll end up getting before it's all over.

With the ACA, it was not only necessary to "pass it in order to find out what was in it," but it will also be necessary to put it into effect in order to find out what it is going to do.

You can, to some extent, predict what people in the mass is going to do based on knowledge of what they have done in the past when faced with similar situations. However, you put something entirely new out there, and there is no telling how they are going to react and what the eventual results will be. And it certainly is foolishness to try to put actual numbers to it as this study tries to do. But that is what Congress requires of the CBO, so that is what they do.

Anyone remember the "OPEC shock" of the 1970's, the predictions made for for the US economy, automotive design and usage, etc., and so on, and compare that to what has actually happened?

Is this really what dems want to say about their economic job recovery plans? Freedom is being on the dole? Pajama boy living in his parents basement not working is how they're going to create a middle class?

"“It was wonderful. It was very freeing,” said Lower, 56, of Bourbon, Ind., who is now babysitting her 5-year-old granddaughter full time. With the help of federal subsidies that kicked in Jan. 1, she is paying less than $500 a month for health coverage for herself and her husband."And she isn't earning the income she was working full time. If her husband can pay all the bills on a single salary, more power to them. But I would assume that their other expenses didnt' go away simply because they were paying less in health care.If its cheaper to not work then it is to pay for health care, then how is the health care offered affordable?

There is one person who came up with this genius (love it or hate it) spin for Obamacare. Then it was approved by someone as a major talking point. I wonder if the originator is known and admired, or if they had their spin stolen by higher ups who are taking the (insider)credit.

I notice that Gonzalez-Novoa (in the article) says he is now paying $170/mo. for his insurance, although his cholesterol meds alone cost $200/mo. Does it strike anyone else as a mite unseemly for a 44-year-old guy who was making $88K to quit working altogether, no matter how worthy his pro bono project, so that we can spot him expensive medication at a considerable loss?

John McCain actually ran on a platform that included reducing job lock and it's long been a foundation of conservative health care proposals, so while it's convenient to forget that as conservatives we should be careful how far we take this argument. Our country's employer based healthcare insurance system is not the most conservative healthcare system. One of the primary roadblocks to a successful social economic ladder is the reliance on employer driven healthcare which prevents people from starting their own businesses. It's also been a significant liniting factor in our global competitiveness. This is why Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, The Heritage Foundation, and in fact most conservative policy thinkers have historically supported efforts to reduce job lock.

I don't think any of those consider losing your job an example of solving "job lock." THere are many ways to solve the problem. The Germans have "sickness funds" that are based on where you live or what you do, in addition to your employer. France uses job types, like white collar workers. Obamacare just ignored experience and chose the worst possible method, a mandate. Then combined it with income transfer.

When fewer people get work under Democrats, its wonderful and liberating."

If this idiocy is accepted as a political doctrine soon to follow it will become a legal doctrine. Now imagine a divorce layer using that concept in the motion to reduce permanent alimony and or child support.

How many workers are in a position to decide to work less? Just tell their employer, hey, I'm only going to work 25 hours a week now. For a lot of jobs, that is equal to a resignation. You're either there full time with responsibilities, or they need to find someone else who can be.

In the summer of 1961, between graduation from prep school and starting college, I worked as an unpaid apprentice in a summer stock theater (at the time, I thought I might want to make my living as an actor, but I later made the wiser choice of becoming a lawyer). Most of the other young members of the company were left-wing, and their firm belief was that the Government ought to pay everyone a guaranteed annual income – enough to get by on – so that people would be free to follow their dreams. I was stunned, because as a middle-class kid, I had been brought up to believe that you were responsible for supporting yourself.

I followed my approach in my own life, and it’s worked out reasonably well. Now we as a nation may be starting to try the other approach. We’ll see how that works out.

kentuckyliz said... How many workers are in a position to decide to work less? Just tell their employer, hey, I'm only going to work 25 hours a week now. For a lot of jobs, that is equal to a resignation. You're either there full time with responsibilities, or they need to find someone else who can be.

The people most impacted are those whose income is very close to the subsidizy cutoff points. If earning a dollar over the cutoff will cost them thousands more per year in health insurance costs, they'll do whatever they can to keep from going over the limit. They'll decline opportunities for extra income such as overtime or even promotions. Many bosses will understand - while they have a business to run, they're not all the ogres of union and socialist propaganda.